RESUMO
The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), recently expressed concern that "a shortage of investment in training, education, research, and infrastructure seen in many sectors and countries may compromise society's ability to properly manage radiation risks" and in 2022 announced the "Vancouver call for action to strengthen expertise in radiological protection worldwide". As representatives of organisations in formal relations with ICRP, we decided to promote this position paper to declare and emphasise that strengthening the expertise in radiological protection is a collective priority for all of us.
RESUMO
This paper provides an overview of results achieved through a whole set of ALARA investigations at the Goesgen Nuclear Power Plant. Doses to workers, the public and the environment have significantly dropped in recent years. Even the doses to the most exposed workers at the plant are not bigger than doses from natural background radiation. Recent reviews of epidemiological data call attention to the importance of recognising that the risk of cancer at low doses is small and might contribute only a very small, non-detectable fraction to an individual's overall risk. Based on the global cultural change on how society is facing any kind of risk, the initial ALARA philosophy is moving more and more to a continuing expectation that optimisation is equivalent to reduction. This philosophy change is even more pronounced in the light of the ongoing discussions about the effects of low dose radiation. Multiple conservatisms in dose models and dose calculations will lead to an imbalance between radiation risks and benefits. Overweighting radiation risks from low doses causes anxiety among the public and unnecessary economic burden to nuclear facilities. In light of pressing global issues (i.e. climate change), a discussion about the meaning of the 'R' in ALARA is recommended.
Assuntos
Proteção Radiológica , Humanos , Centrais Nucleares , Doses de RadiaçãoRESUMO
Occupational exposure in nuclear power plants has been reduced significantly within the last two decades. Dose distribution of workers shows that 80 % have a dose <1 mSv y(-1). Discharges have always been low, resulting in hypothetical doses of a few micro Sieverts per year to the most affected persons. Dose distribution owing to natural and medical exposure does not change for the majority of workers by adding their occupational dose distribution. Doses from discharges do not have any impact on the dose distribution of the public. Nuclear power implicates no additional radiation risks to the public and tiny risks for a few of the workers. Nuclear power contributes positively to the environment and to public health with tremendous savings of greenhouse gas emissions. Comparing the public benefits, tiny doses for workers are easily justified. Further reductions of discharge limits or occupational exposure constraints are without a real gain in public health.
